For the universe to form from Big Bang, it would have required a tremendous amount of energy. Where did that come from?

Evolutionists say life evolved from unicellular organisms. Where did the cells come from? Actually, if you learn the structure of the cells, it is actually quite complicated, and could not have been created by chance. They have the nucleus, cytoplasm, membrane, and the cytoplasmic organelles.

Evolution says animals adapt to a new environment by developing new traits. To develop new traits, they would need a completely different type of DNA. When they adapt, they do not develop new traits, simply, the hidden traits already in existence comes out. For an organism to develop new traits, would be like a cmoputer programming itself.

Mutation do not create new DNA, it simply alters the DNA.

Neo Darwinism says organisms with best traits for a certain environments survive. And new traits are developed through mutation. assuming new traits have been developed through mutation, it would still take long periods of time to completely evolve into another species. a species half-way evolved would not be superior to other species, and through natural selection, they would die out before they can fully evolve.

Most importantly, everyone can probably say that humans do have "souls" unlike any other animals. Evolution cannot develop "souls", which means they would either have to conclude all living things have souls, or nothing has souls. Personally, i think we do have souls. We do feel love, we do get bored, we do get entertained, we feel sympathy, we feel pain, we have hopes, friendship unlike any other animals.

I do not know evolution well enough so a lot of points ive made about evolution could have been misunderstood. Please comment on those, I want to hear what you guys have to say.

Welcome aboard, EF! Any of the points you raise could stand alone as the topic of an interesting discussion. I'm afraid we might get pretty lost trying to address them all at once, but I'll respond briefly. If there is one in particular that interests you the most, you might consider starting a thread with the focus narrowed down to just that (and watch us get lost anyway!).

For the universe to form from Big Bang, it would have required a tremendous amount of energy. Where did that come from?

That's an interesting puzzle, but why do you feel that the burden for solving it falls upon biologists?

Where did the cells come from?

Another fascinating question, and one which has recieved much attention. The answer I like best is: "we don't know". Even the prokaryotic cell, though much simpler than the eukaryotic cell you described, is still a pretty sophisticated piece of engineering; far too much so to have fallen together by mere happenstance -- which is why none of the popular hypotheses for the origin of the cell rely on happenstance, but on some form of selection.

Evolution says animals adapt to a new environment by developing new traits. To develop new traits, they would need a completely different type of DNA.

The only types of molecules we know of that carry genetic information are DNA and RNA; but it shouldn't come as any surprise that the simple 'alphabets' they employ are capable of expressing an unlimited number of proteins, just as the 26-letter alphabet of the English language is capable of expressing an infinite number of ideas.

Mutation do not create new DNA, it simply alters the DNA.

One of the most common types of mutation is what are referred to as: "insertions"; these may be single point mutations, or they may involve sequences of some length.

a species half-way evolved would not be superior to other species, and through natural selection, they would die out before they can fully evolve.

This statement actually reflects a decent grasp of one of the key ideas in modern evolutionary theory: that a new form cannot prosper by virtue of being an intermediate step toward something better; every change, in order to persist, must be an improvement over previous forms.

Evolution cannot develop "souls", which means they would either have to conclude all living things have souls, or nothing has souls.

There is another possibility, which is that evolutionary theory may simply remain silent on this issue.

Another fascinating question, and one which has recieved much attention. The answer I like best is: "we don't know". Even the prokaryotic cell, though much simpler than the eukaryotic cell you described, is still a pretty sophisticated piece of engineering; far too much so to have fallen together by mere happenstance -- which is why none of the popular hypotheses for the origin of the cell rely on happenstance, but on some form of selection.

1) Engineering is an intellectual activity.2) Selection of what? The origins of the material for selection has to be chance or intelligence.

1) Engineering is an intellectual activity.2) Selection of what? The origins of the material for selection has to be chance or intelligence.

Terry

I submit that 1) is true only most of the time and 2) is a false dichotomy.

Reductio ad absurdum (proof by counter example)

Engineering, like doing crosswords, is an intellectual activity. Building bridges and vehicles (to its fullest extent) and farming (to a lesser extent) are types of engineering. Ants build bridges and vehicles, and farm. Ants are not intellectual creatures--a particularly illustrative counter example. Other, more exacting lines of reasoning exist, I choose to let the reader interpolate them. Ergo, 1) is only nostly true.

What makes this example interesting is that it isn't the ant that is intelligent, but rather the ant colony. It is impossible to actually point to the lone ant, or even subset of ants, that is intelligent.So where does the intelligence come from? It comes from the apparent chaos of the ant colony. It can be concluded that intelligence and chance are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Once again, there are more rigorous examples. I, once again, let the reader interpolate them.

For the universe to form from Big Bang, it would have required a tremendous amount of energy. Where did that come from?

I am not as familiar with Big Bang Cosmology as I would like to be, but I recommend this website.

Evolutionists say life evolved from unicellular organisms. Where did the cells come from? Actually, if you learn the structure of the cells, it is actually quite complicated, and could not have been created by chance. They have the nucleus, cytoplasm, membrane, and the cytoplasmic organelles.

You are assuming that those cells are still similar to cells found today. The simpler life forms that we evolved from could have been MUCH simpler than the uekaryotic organism you described above above. It's highly possible that they were even much simpler than the prokaryotic organisms found today - and that they have simply died off. Organisms such as these would not have been complicated at all.

To develop new traits, they would need a completely different type of DNA. When they adapt, they do not develop new traits, simply, the hidden traits already in existence comes out.

No, to develop new traits, mutations have to occur. These are brand new traits that are caused by all sorts of genetic "malfunctions". The beneficial mutations cause those particular organisms to prosper and therefore to share their genetic material. Eventually, after many, many generations of mutations and continued adaption, new species form. They wouldn't need a completely different type of DNA. There is no such thing as a completely different type of DNA - all DNA is the same. It's the pattern of the DNA that matters. They would simply need a new pattern of DNA to be different from the parent species.

Mutation do not create new DNA, it simply alters the DNA.

Exactly. Nothing can create "new" DNA.

Neo Darwinism says organisms with best traits for a certain environments survive. And new traits are developed through mutation. assuming new traits have been developed through mutation, it would still take long periods of time to completely evolve into another species. a species half-way evolved would not be superior to other species, and through natural selection, they would die out before they can fully evolve.

It sometimes takes a very long time for a new species to develop, but not always. A species "half-way" evolved would simply be half-way evolved. Being half-way evolved wouldn't cause it to die out because it would be one half-step above the parent species.

Most importantly, everyone can probably say that humans do have "souls" unlike any other animals. Evolution cannot develop "souls", which means they would either have to conclude all living things have souls, or nothing has souls. Personally, i think we do have souls. We do feel love, we do get bored, we do get entertained, we feel sympathy, we feel pain, we have hopes, friendship unlike any other animals.

Define "soul". Apes and whales can feel a sense of love, and if anything gets bored, my animals certainly do. They also get very entertained - my dogs will play outside, my bird chases my dogs for the fun of it, and my turtle repeatedly hops off his basking dock just to chase the bubbles he makes when he falls in. I have two dogs that are so close that I can't separate them without feeling terrible about it. They are best friends. I'm not quite sure how any of the qualities you mentioned (being bored, entertained, friendship) qualitfy as evidence for the human "soul".

I got to this topic a little late, but I thought it was interesting enough to respond. I simplified everything I said, so I hope I'm not undershooting your intelligence or something.

Engineering, like doing crosswords, is an intellectual activity. Building bridges and vehicles (to its fullest extent) and farming (to a lesser extent) are types of engineering. Ants build bridges and vehicles, and farm. Ants are not intellectual creatures--a particularly illustrative counter example. Other, more exacting lines of reasoning exist, I choose to let the reader interpolate them. Ergo, 1) is only nostly true.

This raises an interesting question: Where did the information for the ant to know how to build a bridge come from?

Information cannot arise from a purely matieristic process since information is not matter.

The information for the animal kindgom to perform the things it does, e.g. ants building bridges, migrating birds flying to places that ought not be able to reach( e.g. golden plover), etc..., is programmed into them.

Its still an intellectual acitivity, just one step back in the process, the progammer was the Lord Jesus Christ.

That's your opinion, and you cannot prove it. The non-believer can just as well say that instinct (which is actually what tells the plover to migrate and what causes the ant to produce a chemical that tells the other ants to build a bridge) is simply another process that has been fine-tuned and developed through several billion years of evolution and adaptation to the environment.

This raises an interesting question: Where did the information for the ant to know how to build a bridge come from?

It is especially interesting when you consider the fact that an ant just barely has anything you could really call a brain; certainly nothing sufficient to enable any individual ant to possess a complete set of plans for any structure as complex as those created by ants. An ant doesn't know how to build a bridge.

The information for the animal kindgom to perform the things it does, e.g. ants building bridges, [ ] etc..., is programmed into them.

But it isn't; that's what makes it interesting. What is programmed into an ant (my favorite example, along with the termite) is a very limited set of very simple instructions, primarily responses to pheremonal signals and temperature. It might be argued that the instructions for building an ant or termite nest don't exist at all; that the structure is something that just happens when enough ants or termites get together.

By extension, no individual neuron in a human brain is capable of storing a complete set of instructions for the solving of a crossword puzzle, and it could be similarly argued that that sort of functionality is something that just happens when enough neurons get together. Deciding what to call 'intellectual activity' is, ultimately, a judgement call.

What exactly is my opinion that can't be proven? What kind of proof., rational, emprical, etc... are you looking for?

The non-believer can just as well say that instinct

Well sure, non-believers say lots of things. Instinct is an admission of ignorance about how something works.

(which is actually what tells the plover to migrate and what causes the ant to produce a chemical that tells the other ants to build a bridge) is simply another process that has been fine-tuned and developed through several billion years of evolution and adaptation to the environment.

I think that's because most evolutionists never latch on to the concept of information and what it means to life, physically, and mentally. Otherwise; they probably would say something different.

It is especially interesting when you consider the fact that an ant just barely has anything you could really call a brain; certainly nothing sufficient to enable any individual ant to possess a complete set of plans for any structure as complex as those created by ants.

I agree...

An ant doesn't know how to build a bridge.

I don't know what an ant knows. Do foraging honey bees know how to communcate? I don't know. If they don't know how to do it, then they are essentially machines acting on a program.

Do we really want to go down the ramifications of what it means to recognize a program that exists again????

But it isn't; that's what makes it interesting. What is programmed into an ant (my favorite example, along with the termite) is a very limited set of very simple instructions, primarily responses to pheremonal signals and temperature. It might be argued that the instructions for building an ant or termite nest don't exist at all; that the structure is something that just happens when enough ants or termites get together.

By extension, no individual neuron in a human brain is capable of storing a complete set of instructions for the solving of a crossword puzzle, and it could be similarly argued that that sort of functionality is something that just happens when enough neurons get together. Deciding what to call 'intellectual activity' is, ultimately, a judgement call.

I suppose it might be all be something that just happens when some things get together, but if we look at how things work in life, IMO its not really a rational conlcusion as much as it is a leap of faith.

Its still an intellectual acitivity, just one step back in the process, the progammer was the Lord Jesus Christ.

I am not looking for proof that God exists, I am debating about evolution. There is no way that you can possibly convince me that evolution is false - I've seen it and I know it to be true.

Instinct is an admission of ignorance about how something works.

Here's another opinion that's not backed up. Please explain further. Do you really understand instinct? It's a process that's been finely tuned for a long time. An ant doesn't really think. Organisms that small and simple rely almost solely on instinct. Ants produce chemicals by instinct that allow them to communicate with other ants. Instinct IS the program - it's a program that's taken a long time to develop, but it does not imply a creator or sentient programmer. The programmer, if you will, is nature itself.

I'm a biologist, so I see signs of it in my everyday life. But if you want one example that is rather fascinating, I'll give one.

I'm really into researching/elliminating exotic and invasive species. One species that has been recently introduced into US waters is the Northern Snakehead, a type of fish from Southeast Asia. They were introduced, probably by hobbyists, into some northern states (Maryland, the DC area) and are such a large and predacious fish that biologists all over the country were worried that they would be detrimental to native fish populations (and this has proven to be true). However, we had a lot of hope that this fish would die off after a while because they do not tolerate cooler water very well. They need warmer waters in which to spawn, so it was assumed that large efforts could be made to remove the fish that had been released, and that any fish left unfound would simply die of natural causes after several years.

However, there are several different species of snakeheads, and they are so similar in appearance that it is almost impossible to ID them in the field. We know that several species have been introduced, and that some of those species may be the somewhat cooler tolerant species. But, even so, they wouldn't be quite coldwater tolerant enough to spawn in cold New England waters. It has been several years since the first snakeheads were introduced, and we are still finding them. It turns out that they are in fact breeding in the colder waters, much to our surprise (and dismay).

An examination of otiliths and other genetic materials has shown that some of the snakeheads being found today are quite possibly slightly genetically different from the parent species that were introduced several years ago. Of the many specimens that were introduced, the few specimens that were slightly more cold tolerant have survived and were able to spawn. Their offspring are slowly becoming more cold-tolerant than previous generations.

It is highly possible that this short-term evolution could lead to a new subspecies of snakehead. This means that we've got a huge problem on our hands, from a biological standpoint. We are talking about a fish that can breathe out of water and "walk" from pond to pond. It's quite an amazing story.

Hopefully this year more efforts will be made to fully study the genetic material and evolution of this species in a formal study. I have a feeling that the Corps of Engineers will be handling this soon.

So there's my example of evolution-in-the-making. We are seeing one of the shortest subspecies evolutions in a long time. Other examples of small evolutionary changes are the small, but noteworthy, changes of the darters (genus Etheostoma). One example is the recent finding of the Strawberry darter that was previously listed as a subspecies and has now been elevated to species status because they have evolved to be too genetically different from their parent species.

I could go on, but I don't really need to. I see evolution every day. Humans are short-lived creatures, so we only see parts of an evolutionary advancement in a species. Some people simply fail to see the whole picture.

Yes, yes. As does 'engineering', 'design', and a host other ordinary English words. Just because the language is teleologically front-loaded doesn't mean that the underlying assumptions are valid.

I thought we agreed that this sort of difficulty could be resolved by the use of such qualifiers as: "functionally equivalent to..." whatever; as in: "those features of neural processes in social insects which are functionally equivalent to 'instructions' and 'programming' in digital computer technology". Seems like a lot of typing to avoid a semantic quibble though; do we really have to go through all that every time?

I am not looking for proof that God exists, I am debating about evolution. There is no way that you can possibly convince me that evolution is false - I've seen it and I know it to be true.

I'm a biologist, so I see signs of it in my everyday life.

Well, we've went from "I've seen it and know it to be true", to "I see signs of it".

You're obviously a true believer and that's fine, but creationists are generally familiar with the equivocation of evolutionists over this issue. Speciation is not the issue here, its the unwaranted and unjustified extroplolation of it to the past that's the issue.

Yes, yes. As does 'engineering', 'design', and a host other ordinary English words. Just because the language is teleologically front-loaded doesn't mean that the underlying assumptions are valid.

Maybe not, but if there was any other really good work to explain it, then I think it would be used. This is the evidence that God has submitted to you of his existance. The fact that its natural to describe it that way testifies to its validity as an argument.

I thought we agreed that this sort of difficulty could be resolved by the use of such qualifiers as: "functionally equivalent to..." whatever; as in: "those features of neural processes in social insects which are functionally equivalent to 'instructions' and 'programming' in digital computer technology". Seems like a lot of typing to avoid a semantic quibble though; do we really have to go through all that every time?(Edited to add): Oh, I see the smiley now. Neeeever mind.

I agreed that in some cases it makes sense to do that. When we can see a system functioning, e.g. the communication system of foraging honey bees, then that's a clear design concept with a mental origin since there are no known ways for that to originate through pure materialistic processes alone. Describing that as "functionally equivalent" does it a great diservice. The same thing can be said for the machinery of the living cell.....

The example of the FPGA that does something can be considered as "functionally equivalent", since no real system has yet to be identified in it, that an intelligent being may come up with.

TerryP.S. I also said that I thought we would precisely figure out what we were agreeing to down the road..... Please don't think that I'm surrenduring the argument from deisgn....

Speciation is part of evolution. Are you agreeing that evolution does, in fact, take place?

I think Dr. Sarfati has a nice explanation of what I'm agreeing to.

Watch for equivocation, i.e. using the same term in different ways in the same article. ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s very common for evolutionary propagandists to define evolution as (1) simply Ã¢â‚¬Ëœchange in a population over timeÃ¢â‚¬â„¢, as well as (2) the idea that all life came from a single cell, which itself came from a chemical soup. Then they produce examples of Ã¢â‚¬ËœevolutionÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ (1) and use this to prove evolution (2), and then claim that Biblical creation is wrong! However the Biblical creation model does imply that organisms change over timeÃ¢â‚¬â€but these changes would always involve sorting or loss of already existing (created) genetic information, never the gain of new information. But evolution (2) requires the gain of new information. Even if information losing (or neutral) processes could continue for billions of years, they would never add up to a gain of information. Rather, to support evolution (2), evolutionists must demonstrate changes that increase information. If this theory were true, there should be plenty of examples, but we have yet to observe even one. Since evolution (2) is the only issue at stake in the creation/evolution controversy, we advise against referring to any mere change as Ã¢â‚¬ËœevolutionÃ¢â‚¬â„¢Ã¢â‚¬â€not even Ã¢â‚¬Ëœmicro-evolutionÃ¢â‚¬â„¢Ã¢â‚¬â€and reserving the term Ã¢â‚¬ËœevolutionÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ for (2).

the drugs wipe out all the non-resistant germs, so the most resistant germs survive and multiply. This leads to a whole population thatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s resistant to antibiotics. This is not evolution because the resistance already existed in the population.

How did the resistance get there in the first place? Probably due to a mutation. This is a change in genetic material that leads to different DNA in a species. This is evolution.

Mutations are not evolution. They are copying mistakes in the genes. No mutation is known to increase information content

Of course it doesn't increase information content. The article doesn't really explain what it means by 'increasing' in information. The DNA is changed when a mutation occurs. If the mutation is beneficial, the mutation is spread throughout the population and a new species forms. That IS evolution.

Natural selection is not evolution. This merely weeds out organisms and the information they contain; it doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t generate new information.

Again, this isn't clear. Natural selection weeds out organisms that are genetically inferior to other organisms, even other organisms within their own species. The genetic diversity was created by mutations, and the spreading of these mutations (with the help of natural selection) IS evolution.

these changes would always involve sorting or loss of already existing (created) genetic information, never the gain of new information.

Mutations create new DNA, or new information, so this is obviously false because it assumes that new information cannot be gained. Mutations are new information.

Then they produce examples of Ã¢â‚¬ËœevolutionÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ (1) and use this to prove evolution (2), and then claim that Biblical creation is wrong!

Oh no! The Bible? Wrong? I have to ask - how would you prove evolution, other than to provide examples of evolution? That's like saying I can't prove that some cats are black by providing photographs of black cats.

So let's get on to the subject of asexually producing organisms. For a population of asexually producing organisms to gain genetic diversity, mutations must occur, or else the species would die out (it would be unable to cope with a changing environment). An asexually producing species does contain some genetic diversity due to mutations.

every known mutation has either decreased information content or was informationally neutral. This applies even to the rare examples of beneficial mutations.

I still don't see the logic here. You can't decrease or increase information - you can only change DNA. This is a very ambiguous use of words. Some DNA is 'better' than other DNA, simply because it allows that organism to survive. How exactly is a beneficial mutation not an 'increase in genetic information'? What would be an example of an increase in genetic information?